Let’s not make it personal
The Independent today covers a very disappointing angle to the controversy surrounding the FSA organic report story.
I suppose we shouldn’t be overly surprised, but it seems that the report’s author, Dr Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, has been inundated with abusive emails and messages.
While we’ve been among the first to criticise the way this study has been focused, the conclusions it came to and the way it has been badly reported, it’s extremely sad to see that people have to make it personal and hurl vitriol at Dr Dangour.
Whether you question his approach or, as some people have, his motivations, he is entitled to publish whatever he finds to be the results of his work. If we disagree, the answer is to have our own say and perhaps some debate. But there should always be respect for everyone’s position.
Fortunately, it seems from the report that Dr Dangour is fairly sanguine about the whole affair and not letting it rattle him too much.
[Click here for the Independent piece]
Agreed.
The organic industry and its supporters are absolutely right to be angry that the FSA commissioned a study with such a narrow research criteria and a cut-off date that meant the positive findings of the 5-year QLIF study could not be included.
The sector is also right to be deeply suspicious of the complete unwillingness by government to conduct joined up research into organic food and farming. The status quo (and all the big food and pharma conglomerates who benefit from it) is brilliantly served by the FSA saying “we can’t look at pesticides, that’s the up to the Department of Health”, the DOH saying “we know a healthy environment directly benefits human health but that’s the Defra’s patch”, and Defra declaring “organic is just a lifestyle choice and not worth researching”.
But resorting to abuse is not only ethically wrong, it’s inevitably counterproductive and makes the organic sector just look nasty.